alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A1660. STEPHANIE FLOWERS v. SELENE FINANCE, LP et al.

This case was docketed by this Court on March 20, 2019. The Appellant’s

brief and enumerations of error were due on April 9, 2019. As of the date of this

Order, almost four months later, Appellant has not filed a brief and enumerations of

error and has not requested an extension of time in which to do so. Accordingly,

pursuant to Court Rules 13 and 23(a), this appeal is deemed abandoned and is hereby

DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

August 06, 2019

08/06/2019
### §262p–4c. Initiation of discussions to facilitate debt-for-development swaps for human welfare and environmental conservation

#### (a) Findings

The Congress finds that—

(1) voluntary debt-for-development swaps in heavily indebted developing nations can simultaneously facilitate reduction of the burden of external indebtedness and increase the resources available within the country for charitable, educational, and scientific purposes, including environmental conservation, education, human welfare, health, agricultural research and development, microenterprise credit, and development of indigenous nonprofit organizations; and

(2) heavily indebted developing countries may desire to facilitate such swaps to the maximum extent consistent with sound domestic economic management and minimization of inflationary impact.

#### (b) Initiation of discussions to facilitate debt-for-development swaps for human welfare and environmental conservation

#### (1) In general

The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the United States Executive Director of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development to initiate discussions with the directors of such bank, the International Development Association, and the International Finance Corporation and propose that such institutions provide advice and assistance, as appropriate, to borrowing country governments desiring to facilitate debt-for-development swaps, on mechanisms (including trust funds) to accomplish this purpose, particularly in the context of debt rescheduling, which mechanisms result in sound management of the macroeconomic impact of such swaps on such countries, and preserve the value of the capital obtained through such swaps.

#### (2) Definitions

As used in this section:

#### (A) Debt-for-development swap

The term "debt-for-development swap" means the purchase of qualified debt by, or the donation of such debt to, an organization described in section 501(c)(3) of title 26 which is exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of title 26, and the subsequent transfer of such debt to an organization located in such foreign country in exchange for an undertaking by such tax-exempt organization, such foreign government, or such foreign organization to engage in a charitable, educational, or scientific activity.

#### (B) Qualified debt

The term "qualified debt" means—

(i) sovereign debt issued by a foreign government;

(ii) debt owed by private institutions in the country governed by such foreign government; and

(iii) debt owed by institutions in the country governed by such foreign government, which are owned, in part, by private persons and, in part, by public institutions.

(Pub. L. 95–118, title XVI, §1608, as added Pub. L. 100–461, title V, §555, Oct. 1, 1988, 102 Stat. 2268–36.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 1608 of Pub. L. 95–118 is based on section 8 of H.R. 4645, One Hundredth Congress, as reported Sept. 28, 1988, and enacted into law by Pub. L. 100–461.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Definitions

The definitions in section 262p–5 of this title apply to this section.
§ 220.21 Initial evaluation of a previous occupational disability. ( a ) In some cases, the Board may determine that a claimant is not currently disabled for work in his or her regular occupation but was previously disabled for a specified period of time in the past. This can occur when— ( 1 ) The disability application was filed before the claimant's occupational disability ended, but the Board did not make the initial determination of occupational disability until after the claimant's disability ended; or
( 2 ) The disability application was filed after the claimant's occupational disability ended but no later than the 12th month after the month the disability ended.
( b ) When evaluating a claim for a previous occupational disability, the Board follows the steps in § 220.13 to determine whether an occupational disability existed, and follows the steps in §§ 220.16 and 220.17 to determine when the occupational disability ended.
Example 1: The claimant sustained multiple fractures to his left leg in an automobile accident which occurred on June 16, 1982. For a period of 18 months following the accident the claimant underwent 2 surgical procedures which restored the functional use of his leg. After a recovery period following the last surgery, the claimant returned to his regular railroad job on February 1, 1984. The claimant, although fully recovered medically and regularly employed, filed an application on December 3, 1984 for a determination of occupational disability for the period June 16, 1982 through January 31, 1984. The Board reviewed his claim in January 1985 and determined that he was occupationally disabled for the prior period which began on June 16, 1982 and continued through January 31, 1984. A disability annuity is payable to the employee only for the period December 1, 1983 through January 31, 1984. An annuity may not begin any earlier than the 1st day of the 12th month before the month in which the application was filed. (See part 218 of this chapter for the rules on when an annuity may begin).
Example 2: The claimant is occupationally disabled using the same medical facts disclosed above, beginning June 16, 1982 (the date of the automobile accident). The claimant files an application for an occupational disability annuity, dated December 1, 1983. However, as of February 1, 1984, and before the Board makes a disability determination, the claimant returns to his regular railroad job and is no longer considered occupationally disabled. The Board reviews the claimant's application in May of 1984 and finds him occupationally disabled for the period June 16, 1982 through January 31, 1984. A disability annuity is payable to the employee from December 1, 1982 through January 31, 1984. (See part 218 of this chapter for the rules on when an annuity may begin).
# C_2012372EN.01000501.xml

| 1.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/5

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

2012/C 372/08

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

1

| Date and time of closure | 11.11.2012 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 11.11.2012-31.12.2012 |
| Member State | Portugal |
| Stock or group of stocks | PLE/8/3411 |
| Species | Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) |
| Zone | VIII, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1 |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | FS73TQ43 |

Date and time of closure

11.11.2012

Duration

11.11.2012-31.12.2012

Member State

Portugal

Stock or group of stocks

PLE/8/3411

Species

Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa)

Pleuronectes platessa

Zone

VIII, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

FS73TQ43

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

1

---
Exhibit 99.3 - Annual Statement of Compliance for the year
	       ended December 31, 2005


AURORA LOAN SERVICES
A Lehman Brothers Company


Via UPS

February 23, 2006


Trish O'Neill Manella
Wachovia Bank N.A.
One Penn Plaza, 27th Floor
Suite 2700, Mail Code NY4045
New York, NY 10119

RE:	SARM 2005-9
	Annual Officer's Certificate as to Compliance

Dear Ms. Manella:

The undersigned Officer certifies the following for the period ending
on December 31, 2005:

1.	I have reviewed the activities and performance of the Master
Servicer during the preceding calendar year under the terms of the
Trust Agreements and to the best of this Officer's knowledge, the
Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its duties, responsibilities
or obligations under the Agreements;

2.	Based on said review and to the best of this Officer's knowledge,
the Master Servicer is not in default of its obligations under the terms
of the Trust Agreements in any material respect, or, if there is a default
in the fulfillment of its obligations, a description of each default or
failure and the nature and status thereof has been reported to this Officer;

3.	To the best of this Officer's knowledge, nothing has arose to lead
this Officer to believe that its Servicer has failed to perform any of its
duties, responsibilities and obligations under its Servicing Agreement during
the preceding calendar year;

4.	To the best of this Officer's knowledge, the Servicer is not in
default of its obligations under the terms of its Servicing Agreement in any
material respect, or, if there is a default in the fulfillment of its
obligations, a description of each default or failure and the nature and
status thereof has been reported to this Officer;

5.	The Master Servicer has received from its Servicer such Servicer's
annual certificate of compliance and a copy of such Servicer's annual audit
report, in each case to the extent required under the applicable Servicing
Agreement, or, if any such certificate or report has not been received by
the Master Servicer, the Master Servicer is using its best reasonable efforts
to obtain such certificate or report.


Certified By:


/s/ R. Peter Karr
R. Peter Karr
Senior Vice President
Master Servicing Division
§ 30.724 How does a recommended decision become final? ( a ) Within 30 days from the date the recommended decision is issued, the provider may state, in writing, any objections to the recommended decision. This written statement should be filed with the Director for Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation.
( b ) For the purposes of determining whether the written statement referred to in paragraph (a) of this section has been timely filed with the Director for Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation, the statement will be considered to be “filed” on the date that the provider mails it to the Director, as determined by postmark or other carrier's date marking, or the date that such written statement is actually received by the Director, whichever is earlier.
( c ) Written statements objecting to the recommended decision may be filed upon one or more of the following grounds: ( 1 ) A finding or conclusion of material fact is not supported by substantial evidence;
( 2 ) A necessary legal conclusion is erroneous;
( 3 ) The decision is contrary to law or to the duly promulgated rules or decisions of the Director;
( 4 ) A substantial question of law, policy, or discretion is involved; or
( 5 ) A prejudicial error of procedure was committed.
( d ) Each issue shall be separately numbered and plainly and concisely stated, and shall be supported by detailed citations to the record when assignments of error are based on the record, and by statutes, regulations or principal authorities relied upon. Except for good cause shown, no assignment of error by the provider shall rely on any question of fact or law upon which the administrative law judge had not been afforded an opportunity to pass.
( e ) If a written statement of objection is filed within the allotted period of time, the Director for Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation will review the objection. The Director will forward the written objection to DOL OIG, which will have 14 calendar days from that date to respond. Any response from DOL OIG will be forwarded to the provider, which will have 14 calendar days from that date to reply.
( f ) The Director for Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation will consider the recommended decision, the written record and any response or reply received and will then issue a written, final decision either upholding or reversing the exclusion.
( g ) If no written statement of objection is filed within the allotted period of time, the Director for Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation will issue a written, final decision accepting the recommendation of the administrative law judge.
( h ) The decision of the Director for Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation shall be final with respect to the provider's participation in the program, and shall not be subject to further review.
[84 FR 3058, Feb. 8, 2019]
§ 404.1592c Who is entitled to expedited reinstatement? ( a ) You can have your entitlement to benefits reinstated under expedited reinstatement if— ( 1 ) You were previously entitled to a disability benefit on your own record of earnings as indicated in § 404.315, or as a disabled widow or widower as indicated in § 404.335, or as a disabled child as indicated in § 404.350, or to Medicare entitlement based on disability and Medicare qualified government employment as indicated in 42 CFR 406.15;
( 2 ) Your disability entitlement referred to in paragraph (a)(1) of this section was terminated because you did substantial gainful activity;
( 3 ) You file your request for reinstatement timely under § 404.1592d; and
( 4 ) In the month you file your request for reinstatement— ( i ) You are not able or become unable to do substantial gainful activity because of your medical condition as determined under paragraph (c) of this section;
( ii ) Your current impairment is the same as or related to the impairment that we used as the basis for your previous entitlement referred to in paragraph (a)(2) of this section; and
( iii ) You are disabled, as determined under the medical improvement review standard in §§ 404.1594(a) through (e).
( b ) You are entitled to reinstatement on the record of an insured person who is or has been reinstated if— ( 1 ) You were previously entitled to one of the following benefits on the record of the insured person— ( i ) A spouse or divorced spouse benefit under §§ 404.330 and 404.331;
( ii ) A child's benefit under § 404.350; or
( iii ) A parent's benefit under § 404.370;
( 2 ) You were entitled to benefits on the record when we terminated the insured person's entitlement;
( 3 ) You meet the requirements for entitlement to the benefit described in the applicable paragraph (b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(iii) of this section; and
( 4 ) You request to be reinstated.
( c ) We will determine that you are not able to do substantial gainful activity because of your medical condition, under paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section, when: ( 1 ) You certify under § 404.1592d(d)(2) that you are unable to do substantial gainful activity because of your medical condition;
( 2 ) You are not able or become unable to do substantial gainful activity in the month you file your request for reinstatement; and
( 3 ) We determine that you are disabled under paragraph (a)(4)(iii) of this section.
[70 FR 57142, Sept. 30, 2005, as amended at 81 FR 71369, Oct. 17, 2016]
#### Artemio Humberto MERIDA LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-76090.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.*

Decided Feb. 21, 2006.

Artemio Humberto Merida Lopez, pro se.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Terri J. Scadron, Esq., Jennifer Levings, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

*233Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Artemio Humberto Merida Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge’s order denying his application for special rule cancellation under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997. We dismiss the petition for review.

The agency concluded that petitioner was ineligible to apply for special rule cancellation. *See*Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, § 309(c)(5)(C)(i), Pub.L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (1996), as amended by the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997, § 203(2)(b), Pub.L. 105-100, 111 Stat. 2160 (1997) (found at 8 U.S.C. § 1101 note). We lack jurisdiction to consider this determination. *See id.*at § 309(c)(5)(C)(ii) (“A determination by the Attorney General as to whether an alien satisfies the requirements of clause (i) is final and shall not be subject to review by any court.”).

The voluntary departure period was stayed, and that stay will expire upon issuance of the mandate. *See Desta v. Ashcroft,*365 F.3d 741, 750 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
### §283n. Increase in authorized capital stock; United States share; authorization of appropriations

(a) The United States Governor of the Bank is hereby authorized (1) to vote for an increase in the authorized capital stock of the Bank under article II, section 2, of the agreement as recommended by the Board of Executive Directors in its report of April 1967, to the Board of Governors of the Bank; and (2) to agree on behalf of the United States to subscribe to its proportionate share of the $1,000,000,000 increase in the authorized callable capital stock of the bank.

(b) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated, without fiscal year limitation, for payment by the Secretary of the Treasury of the increased United States subscription to the capital stock of the Inter-American Development Bank, $411,760,000.

(Pub. L. 86–147, §17, as added Pub. L. 90–325, June 4, 1968, 82 Stat. 168.)
#### Cream of Wheat Company, Respondent, v. Daniel E. Knowlton, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concurred.
§ 498.219 Post-hearing briefs. ( a ) Any party may file a post-hearing brief.
( b ) The ALJ may require the parties to file post-hearing briefs and may permit the parties to file reply briefs.
( c ) The ALJ will fix the time for filing briefs, which is not to exceed 60 days from the date the parties receive the transcript of the hearing or, if applicable, the stipulated record.
( d ) The parties' briefs may be accompanied by proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
[61 FR 65471, Dec. 13, 1996]
1

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No. 09-4505

____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

ANTONIO TOVAR, JR.,

Appellant

____________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

(D.C. Crim. No. 1-09-cr-00126-001 )

District Judge: The Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo

____________

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

July 15, 2010

Before: FUENTES, VANASKIE and WEIS, Circuit Judges.

Filed: July 22, 2010

____________

OPINION 

 

WEIS, Circuit Judge.

Defendant Antonio Tovar, Jr., who was deported from the United States in

2004, pled guilty to illegally re-entering the country after having been convicted of an
2

aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The District Court sentenced him to 57 months’

imprisonment, a calculation below the initial Guideline range but within the range

ultimately determined by the Court. Defendant now contends that his sentence was

procedurally unreasonable because the District Court failed to state an adequate reason

for declining to grant a variance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) based on “fast-track”

sentencing. We will affirm the sentence imposed.

In determining the initial Guideline range, the District Court arrived at an

adjusted offense level of 21, which, when applied to the defendant’s criminal history

category of V, culminated in a range of 70-87 months’ imprisonment.

The District Court reviewed the defendant’s request for a reduction because

if he were in a border state courtroom, he would be eligible for fast-track sentencing and a

decrease in the adjusted Guideline offense level. In denying the variance, the district

judge acknowledged that she had the discretion to “give it[,]” see United States v.

Arrelucea-Zamudio, 581 F.3d 142, 148-49 (3d Cir. 2009), but declined to do so because

she believed that granting the variance “would create . . . a great disparity” between

others she had sentenced and defendant. Moreover, the district judge believed that

defendant was “likely to attempt re-entry into the United States illegally in the future.”

However, determining that the defendant’s criminal history had been

overstated, the District Court sua sponte reduced it from a category V to a category IV. 

As a result, the defendant’s Guideline range became 51-71 months’ imprisonment. 
3

Our review of the record reveals that the District Court made “an

individualized assessment based on the facts presented, . . . judge[d] their import under §

3553(a)[,]” see id. at 155, and arrived at a reasonable sentence. We are convinced that the

District Court committed no reversible error in the defendant’s sentence. 

Accordingly, the Judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 0

 0

 658

 669

 589

 540

 482

 507

 590

 473

 392

 370

 336

 335

 371

 361

 338

 344

 300

 274

 266

 251

 254

 273

 286

 267

 264

 269

 269

 278

 266

 0

 0

 192

 217

 199

 187

 200

 188

 200

 182

 173

 174

 171

 175

 177

 176

 179

 174

 186

 182

 186

 185

 172

 182

 175

 172

 170

 168

 172

 176

 179

 0

 0

 426

 429

 409

 385

 368

 362

 362

 297

 270

 255

 242

 248

 258

 265

 255

 252

 249

 243

 230

 218

 222

 226

 228

 218

 218

 223

 226

 230

 228

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JANUARY 2018 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: February 1, 2018

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

SAN ANDREAS ON THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER